Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Dave Lindorff: I Was a Victim of the Government's Absurd and Over-Hyped War on Terror

I was injured thanks to the government's ridiculous airport security program last week on a US Air flight from Chicago to Philadelphia. I also saw how pointless the whole thing is, if the supposed goal is really to prevent airline hijackings.

First, my injury. Because of a silly fear that I might blow up a plane with explosives tucked into my running shoes, I, along with everyone else in the security checkpoint line at O'Hare, including two-month-old babies wearing little booties, had to doff my footwear. Clad in just socks, I tried to maneuver my way around a metal counter that held those plastic trays carrying my laptop, my shoes, my belt, and change and keys, and my carry-on bag, and in the process, my unprotected big toe hit a sharp piece of metal protruding from the table.

The metal sliced right under my toenail, making a painful and bloody cut into the soft tissue under the nail. Cursing and bleeding, I made my way through the metal detector, and collected my goods.

Now inside my bag, unbeknownst to the Transportation Security Administration inspectors, was a bottle of mouthwash. It was larger than the approved 2 oz. size, and it was not in an approved sealed plastic bag. But TSA inspectors looking into their video screens at the X-Ray machine didn't see it, because I made sure that it was vertical as it passed through. All they saw was a little circle of plastic. Likewise, on an earlier flight, I had made my way aboard with a Swiss Army knife. By standing it in my carry-on bag so that it would be vertical for the X-Ray, I was able to slip it through and onto the plane.

Now clearly I'm not a terrorist (though for a time, thanks to my anti-Bush, anti-war journalism, and an expose about the TSA's "no-fly" list abuses, I was on the watch list, and would get a circled "S" written on my boarding passes that ensured that I would be pulled aside to have my carry-on luggage hand searched). But if I were a terrorist, I sure wouldn't try to commandeer a plane with a jackknife. I'd want something bigger. But that would be simple. One could easily carry on a 10-inch blade the same way. If one were nervous about doing that, it could be a ceramic or better, a Plexiglas blade -- plenty dangerous, but invisible to X-rays and metal detectors.

For that matter, if I were into suicide bombing and wanted to manufacture a liquid explosive, why on earth would I try to do it by smuggling on two large jars of ingredients, when I could just put them in plastic baggies and carry them aboard in my pockets? Unless you happen to be singled out for special handling, nobody at the security checkpoints pats you down. They just have you walk through the metal detectors while TSA inspectors are busy patting down randomly selected elderly nuns and racially profiled people, such as unfortunate Sikh men wearing turbans.

Any dedicated terrorist hijacker could figure out numerous ways to get explosives and weapons onto a plane past these security arrangements.

And that's not even counting having the weapons smuggled into an airport gate area along with all the goods that are offered for sale there, where they could be picked up after a hijacker had already cleared security. There is no way that all the newspapers, magazines, clothing, trinkets, bottles of booze and personal hygiene products, etc., are screened adequately as they are brought in each day to fill the concession stands for the day's business. First of all, one would have to open and check every bottle and box offered for sale.

If you were genuinely worried about protecting against hijackers, you would have those inspections at the entrance to each plane, not at the entrance to the terminal, and you wouldn't have all that commerce inside the security zone. Ah! But what a roar of outrage we'd hear from the business community if that lucrative business venue were eliminated!

Which brings me to the real question: Why do we have all this pointless and easily breached security, not to mention a list that contains an astonishing one million names of suspected "terrorists"?

Clearly, the security program is not about protecting the flying public, or the nation's tall buildings. That could be done much more cheaply by putting air marshals on all flights, the way they do at El Al, the Israeli airline that has never had a successful hijacking.

No, this is all about heightening the fear level of the American people, to routinize us to living in a police state.

The truth is, nobody is really interested in trying to hijack planes anymore. First of all, the "crash into buildings" tactic is dead. Pilots are now flying armed in armored cockpits that cannot be easily entered, and would not accede to a terrorist's demands any longer, knowing what happened last time. And passengers would not sit passively in a cabin takeover attempt, either. As a result, we don't have to worry about such things any longer.

The ease with which security could be breached, and the fact that it hasn't happened now for seven years, is evidence enough that nobody is even trying to do it.

So let's do away with all this time-consuming, costly, and politically motivated nonsense before I injure my other big toe.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.


Clever or Incompetent?

"No, this is all about heightening the fear level of the American people, to routinize us to living in a police state."

You know, I'm not sure about this. If these people were so clever, then they would have created a situation that had more legs... all four of which (the dogs) they're going to lose come November (unless their balls are planet size and they decide to suspend the elections for reasons of "national security").

I mean, are they really maintaining a "Fear State?" I'm from New York, where the best they can muster is an "Inconvenient But Desensitized to Standing On Line State."

It would be frightening if they are twirling their long mustaches in dark rooms in the White House basement thinking up ways to keep the American people frightened.

But if they are, they're not that good at it. I mean if they wanted us to focus (Americans are ADD by definition) on being afraid of terrorists, they should have kept the price of gasoline down.

Oh, and kept people from losing their homes.

And their jobs.

They should also have known that most of working class America would absorb just so many casualties before they started wondering whether this whole war on terror thing is actually a good idea.

I think if they were really smart, they would have kept us on the edge of our seats like a well directed thriller like Alien. Instead, we're subjected to smarmy, sound bite propaganda sloganism that lost its 'pop' a few years ago.

Of course, it's equally distressing that they actually think they're effectively deterring terrorism by limiting the size of your shampoo bottles and taking off your shoes.

Either way, clever or incompetent, the result is the same: not so much fear as inconvenience, which is all most of us, excepting those who have lost loved ones, whether through death, brain damage or PTSD, to this damn abortion of a "War on Terror" have been asked to contribute.

I hope your toe is better and that your law suit is moving along nicely.

Clemsy, They're BOTH Evil and Incompetent! :D

They're like any half-smart lazy person or group - they found something that works, so they keep doing it over and over and over far past the point where it works any more. The only bad news in this is those ball-less Dems have proven to be just as half-smart and lazy, in believing that Rule by Fear is still working on the Ammurikan Pipples when it clearly no longer is.

Though apparently THE NEW YORKER thinks the same thing - oh, sorry, that was (um...yeah!) "satire"! Just "satire" - no racism or other form of xenophobia among Rich White So-Called "Libburuls" involved, nosiree! ::headpalm!::

Actually, a (small) part of me hopes The Traitor Bush tries to suspend elections in the name of "National Security", b/c I think that might even make my pro-Bush Right-Wing relatives come out of their corners swinging for his head w/their shotgun butts! Mostly though, I just want Obama to win big and McCain to get crushed - and yeah, I want Obama to not break our hearts by turning into DLC "Centrist" Billary 2.0....

David - absolutely right on our bumbling, hamfisted attempts at "Homeland Security". If we were serious about airline security, we'd put actual trained Federal agents checking bags and on flights rather than mall-level rent-a-cops at the entryways - this is more like Vista's UAC, inconveniencing you while telling you This is Making You Safer. Sorry to hear about your toe, too - hope you had it looked at when you got to where you were going.

"They're like any half-smart

"They're like any half-smart lazy person or group - they found something that works, so they keep doing it over and over and over far past the point where it works any more."

Even worse, Doc, they are the living, breathing, empirical demonstration of the validity of the Peter Principle.

Y'know, the more I consider it, the more I blame neither party for the shape we're in. I mean, where's all the Of the People, By the People, For the People?

The People... that's us, right? Well, what about it? Where are we? What are we doing?

Going shopping?

The whole system was designed for an active, involved and informed electorate. Somewhere along the line, it turned into, "I vote so I don't have to think about it."

Well, so there you go. Why bitch when the very 'gilded' elements that were slapped back during the labor movement (Ah, those were the progressive days!), and gave us the Great Depression, were let back through the doors by the kids of those who closed them?

And what are they doing? The very same things that gave us The Great Depression!

Go figure.